Talk:Moons of Neptune
|Moons of Neptune is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on August 7, 2015.|
|Current status: Featured list|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Sorting Problems in the Table
I corrected a few issues where some characters were causing numerical data to sort according to a string sort. some entries included ~'s to signify approximations but I figured that readers would recognize that the information isn't 100% accurate and that approximations were used. This fixed many sorting problems.
However, I couldn't come up with a good way to address the inclusion of "()" in the diameter column. These cause the column to sort improperly if the current sort is on non-numeric data (no issue if first you sort on mass).
There's two options as I see it. Drop the data (which I'm leaning towards, but don't like) or add a new column for diameter measurements of irregular moons (which is going to expand the table too much).
I'm going to rearrange the list by distance from Neptune rather than Roman Numeral; this makes the list more useful because it gives a picture of where the moons are in relation to each other. The Singing Badger 04:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm highlighting the moons of the gas giants according to the following criteria: Lunar sized (Galileans, Titan, Triton) bold name in a medium voilet background (style="background:#ccccff";); smaller spheroidal moons (Saturn & Uranus) bold name in a lavender background (style="background:#eeeeff"); irregular moons not bold and on a white background.
I expect that some of you will object to these categories, and perhaps something else would be better. My idea was that the lunar-size category is one of general human interest, and the spheroidal/irregular distinction is relatively objective and is found frequently in the scientific literature. Especially in the case of Saturn, I think it's important to do something to make the tables more visually accessible and to make the 'main' moons easier to find. They're getting too big to easily navigate. kwami 05:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Psamathe (NX, 2003 N1)
According to , 2003 N1 has been named Psamathe. Strangely, though, there isn't an NIX listed on that page.. straight from NVIII to NX. Any thoughts? Should the pages be changed? --Patteroast 13:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- See comment at Talk:Uranus' natural satellites The Singing Badger 14:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- It is named. It just hasn't been announced yet. [unsigned]
Table versus Detail Pages
Great work and layout. I did notice some differences, however. The table indicates some values that do not match the linked detail pages. For example: Psamathe diameter (table is 28, detail page is 24); S/2002 N2 and N3 (table shows 28 for both, detail shows 48 for both); S/2002 N1 (table is 60, detail is 48); Larissa (208x178 versus 216x204x168). There are others differences as well, but the following may be the mean diameter on the table and the actual on the detail pages: Galatea (158 versus 204x184x144); Despina (148 versus 180x148x128); Thallassa (80 versus 108x100x52); and Naiad (58 versus 96x50x52). Tesseract501 2 June, 2006
I’d like to reference the data in the table (and update them when needed). I can see three possibilities
- Append a ref to each data item - it’s precise but clumsy, I feel
- Add an additional column Ref, with one or more refs (JPL style) - my preference goes to this option
- Add the sources below the table; this option will lose track of which data are from where or will become lengthy
Eurocommuter 14:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I prefer using the additional column as well. 'Course, most of this data are just copied from the individual moons' articles which should hopefully be referenced themselves. Deuar 16:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
As Neptune system is rich in interesting orbits I suggest organising the content around orbits, origin theories (both started but more should be added on Triton and Nereid scenarios). In addition, the system description could be further organised into inner moons, Triton, Nereid, and irregulars, similar to the job done with Saturn’s system. Eurocommuter 21:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
why Semi-major axis of some moons in this page is different from the Semi-major axis in the page of the moon? example Semi-major axis for Psamathe in this page is 46 695 000 km and in Psamathe (moon) the Semi-major axis is 48.096 Gm. which is wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- It will depend on the source. The orbit of objects do vary over time due to perturbations. The Psamathe (moon) article quotes Jacobson 2008. (Source 56) Different epochs will also give slightly different results. The 46.695Gm comes from Scott Sheppard's page. The solar system is not a simple fixed entity. -- Kheider (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Inconsistent data on the 9th moon (Halimede)?
From the data in the ORBITAL TABLE , the ratio of (a cubed)/(P squared) is off by a whopping 17% for Halimede. (a = Semi-major axis, P = period)
- Halimede (using Epoch 2003) (Jacobson, R.A. (2008) NEP078) appears to have a semi-major axis of 16,611,000km with a peroid of 1879.08 days. Using the Natural Satellites Ephemeris Service, I get an epoch 2005 Aug. 18 value of 16,589,670km and 1879.34 days. I suspect someone simply updated a single column in the wiki table at one point. Also keep in mind that irregular moons are frequently perturbed. (See stability). -- Kheider (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The right value must be about 16,600,000 km. I don't have access to the tables so someone else can change it.
- Actually the numbers currently being used for the outer sats are from Sheppards page which refs the NASA page. So the numbers are just older, but not wrong. -- Kheider (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Notes 8, last line: The mass of Triton is from Jacobson, 2009
But I can't found this source, Only one with Jacobson is References 28, Jacobson, R.A. (2008). "NEP078 – JPL satellite ephemeris". Retrieved 2010-10-18 but is 2008.
The Halimede image might actually be Laomedeia: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~mholman/S2002N3_anim.gif
And here's one that is said to be Halimede: http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/gladman/nep2002N1.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)